markomalley

Agreed...but what's up with that mother, though? Signing a 'contract' with her daughter to serve as the mother's 'substitute' while the mother is out of action?

MUSKEGON -- A woman afraid of losing her boyfriend while she was recuperating from surgery arranged to have her 15-year-old daughter be his sex partner for two months. The man and woman now face felony charges. Police said evidence against them includes a written contract signed by all three that specifies the sexual services and the "pay" the girl would get, including clothing and body piercings. The investigation also has led to additional charges against the 37-year-old man for the alleged sexual abuse of a second girl who is younger than 13. (snip) Muskegon Heights Detective Calvin Mahan said the woman "helped facilitate" a two-month sexual relationship between her boyfriend and her daughter. Mahan said the woman "was going to have some surgery and she was afraid she was going to lose her boyfriend." A written contract between the woman, Fitzgibbon and the 15-year-old was drawn up, with the teen to serve as a sex substitute, authorities said. In late July, Fitzgibbon was charged with a total of six counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in two cases involving the 15-year-old girl, who finally told another adult what was going on, authorities said. (remainder snipped) Source: Grand Rapids Press This is a new one that I hadn't heard of previously...

I seem to remember the last time this subject came up, it was completely erased as well. IIRC, the justification was a matter of sensitivity for the Wierwille grandchildren or something along those lines.

First, You're not supposed to un-hijack this thread!!! Secondly... If you wanted to prove that your computer was in use during the time in question (according to your system's clock), you can look at the system log on your machine. For Windows XP it's: Control Panel -- Administrative Tools -- Event Viewer -- System. If you wanted to prove that your computer was in use on the Internet at that time (according to the system's clock), you can look at certain entries on the system log. If you wanted to prove that your computer went to certain web sites at that time (according to the system's clock), you can look at your Internet history. If you wanted to prove that somebody from your IP address and with a cookie registered to you (how many of us log off when we're actually done?) logged onto www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb, you could have Paw's web server logs subpoena'd. But if you wanted to prove that it was YOU that was accessing that website from that computer at that given time, you'd have to use some type of digital signature scheme like I outlined above. Otherwise, you (or they) could suppose that it was actually somebody else on your computer at that time accessing this website. And it couldn't be proven otherwise. (Now the next question is, why are you looking for an alibi??? Hmmmm??? Inquiring minds want to know! ) OK, so meanwhile, back to our regularly scheduled thread hijack!

Because his entire Arian heresy hangs on that one preposition.

Very good point Oaks...very good point. Suppose the evangelicals (and TWI as an offshoot in the context you've mentioned) have the actual meaning totally perverted?

Just for curiosity's sake, what if the entire evangelical interpretation of the concept of "born again" is entirely mistaken? What if they have totally blown it on interpreting the Bible in that regard? Just something to consider...

They are if they are digitally signed. There are three basic issues with electronic communications of any type: #1) The sender's identity must be confirmed (are you who you say you are?) #2) The contents of the e-mail must be confirmed not to have been altered by another person #3) The sender must not be able to repudiate that he/she sent the e-mail. (Wait a minute, somebody else was at my computer and sent that e-mail...) Digitially signing the document allows for "two-factor" or "three-factor" validation of the above The three factors are simply: something you have, something you know, something you are. Something you have: a token, smartcard, or something else along those lines. It's something you physically must have on your person (an unauthorized person wouldn't have that token) Something you know: a PIN, a password, a passphrase, or something else that you, and nobody else knows. (An unauthorized person wouldn't know that piece of information that is in your head and in your head alone) Something you are: your signature, your fingerprint, your retinal scan, your DNA pattern, or something else (An unauthorized person wouldn't be able to have a piece of you that would be needed to validate that it is, in fact, you that is present at the computer sending the e-mail) Obviously, somebody could steal the token from you. But they wouldn't necessarily have the PIN that went with the token. And they wouldn't have your fingerprint. Somebody might be able to look over your shoulder and get the PIN, but they wouldn't have the token that went with the PIN...unless they simultaneously stole the token from you at the same time. Somebody might be able to kill you, cut your hand off, and use your fingerprint, but they wouldn't know the PIN or have the token that went with the fingerprint. Two factor authentication relies on the fact that the odds of somebody having two of the three factors is very small. Three factor authentication relies on the fact that the odds of somebody having all three factors is infinitely small. NOT THAT IT COULDN'T HAPPEN, but the odds are somewhere around the odds of winning the lottery. What happens with a digitally signed message is that you write the message and then "sign" it. The contents of the messsage is run through a computer algorithm that assigns a code to the message that is the signature. If any of the contents of the message is changed, when the recipient of the message runs it through the same algorithm, the code would change. So, therefore, it's known that the message contents are exactly what you sent. The signature can be verified against a trusted "registry," therefore, it can be verified that you sent it. So you end up having nonrepudiation and validation of the contents. The above is not fully technically accurate, but to be fully accurate, we'd have to discuss hash algorithms, public key cryptography, and a bunch of other topics that are way to "geek-like" to get into here. You can google MD5, PKI, DES, AES, and public key cryptography if you want some more technical explanations of the topic. Bottom line: if the document is digitally signed, it's legal. If not, it wouldn't stand up in court. Hope that helps.

Tom/WW: Like I said, for an ex-TWI person, it sounds pretty chilling OM: If it sounds good to you, you should go check it out!

Google Video link: here Caution: it is a little bit racy, so you may not want to play the video around kids or whie at work.

Man dies using sledgehammer on grenade From correspondents in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil August 09, 2006 10:52am A BRAZILIAN man died when he tried to open what police believe was a rocket-propelled grenade with a sledgehammer in a mechanical workshop on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro. Another man who was in the workshop at the time of the explosion was rushed to a hospital with severe burns, a police officer told Reuters. The workshop was destroyed and several cars parked outside caught fire. Police found several unexploded army issue rocket-propelled grenades in the workshop. They believe the ammunition had been brought there by scavengers wanting to sell them as scrap metal, but they also are investigating a possible link to Rio's heavily armed drug gangs who often raid military bases. Source: News.com Australia A Darwin Award is a tongue-in-cheek honor given to people who purportedly improve the human gene pool by removing themselves from it following an episode of questionable judgment. The prizes, named after pioneering evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin, are awarded over the Internet. There is no monetary prize, only recognition.

The following website, http://www.myconclusion.com/, has a bunch of testimonials from members of this group, "The Family International." Chilling for an ex-TWI person to read... Comments?

Well, here's to a good effort. As I recall, it was a need for a number of long-time gs posters who temporarily departed the "mother ship" for one reason or another. Fortunately, I believe that they've all returned to active posting status here. I hope that the reduction in the heavy system administration duties that you'll achieve when you finally lock the shutters will allow you to spend a little more time back here. There has been a tremendous hole around here recently that would be readily filled by your eminent common sense and wit.

Happy Birthday!!!!!

Hear, Hear!!!! The only thing I'd add is "why would anybody want to?"

Clay, on the subject of "the Word of God is the Will of God," We had a discussion on the subject several months ago. You can see the thread, here.

From CBS News: Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Thursday that he hasn't been a believer in global warming in the past, but this summer's record-breaking heat is "making a convert out of me." On his "700 Club" broadcast taped in Virginia Beach, Robertson said, "It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air." Switching sides on an issue that divides evangelical Christians, Robertson said, "We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels." Robertson told viewers, "If we are contributing to the destruction of this planet, we need to do something about it." This spring, Robertson said God had told him severe weather, in the form of storms and possibly a tsunami, will hit America's coastline this year. "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. He added, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest." Source: CBS News Pat the Weather forecaster, now. That guy sure is multi-talented!!!

Why do I keep hearing the theme song from Jaws running through my head when I see this picture?

No, they changed that over in about 1996 or 1997. I ended up switching to them in '99, when I got back to the states.

Executive Summary (click here to read the full statement) The time has come to reframe the narrow terms of the marriage debate in the United States. Conservatives are seeking to enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution through the Federal Marriage Amendment. But their opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage, “family values” agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom. Moreover, a thirty-year political assault on the social safety net has left households with more burdens and constraints and fewer resources. Meanwhile, the LGBT movement has recently focused on marriage equality as a stand-alone issue. While this strategy may secure rights and benefits for some LGBT families, it has left us isolated and vulnerable to a virulent backlash. We must respond to the full scope of the conservative marriage agenda by building alliances across issues and constituencies. Our strategies must be visionary, creative, and practical to counter the right's powerful and effective use of marriage as a “wedge” issue that pits one group against another. The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families. To that end, we advocate: Ø Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status. Ø Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance. Ø Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families. Ø Freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression. Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example: · Single parent households · Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls) · Blended and extended families · Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents · Adult children living with and caring for their parents · Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives · Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers · Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner · Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS. The current debate over marriage, same-sex and otherwise, ignores the needs and desires of so many in a nation where household diversity is the demographic norm. We seek to reframe this debate. Our call speaks to the widespread hunger for authentic and just community in ways that are both pragmatic and visionary. It follows in the best tradition of the progressive LGBT movement, which invented alternative legal statuses such as domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiary. We seek to build on these historic accomplishments by continuing to diversify and democratize partnership and household recognition. We advocate the expansion of existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all our households. We call on colleagues working in various social justice movements and campaigns to read the full-text of our statement “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision,” and to join us in our call for government support of all our households. Source: Beyond Marriage Note: the full statement and the signatories to that statement can be viewed by clicking on the above link So, what do you think? We had the discussion here a while ago within the (apparently) limited scope of same-sex marriage. Now these folks, apparently, want to broaden the definition of marriage even wider. To re-emphasize, they said, Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. Are they right? Should the very concept of marriage be considered restrictive and bigoted? Should it simply be thrown out the door? Should people have official endorsement of their living arrangements regardless of what those arrangements are? My belief? I'll share that later...because I don't want the discussion centering on my beliefs, but on their opinion of the statement given above.

Lancantus had some pertinent information when he wrote the following: Therefore let no one imagine that even this is allowed, to strangle newly-born children, which is the greatest impiety; for God breathes into their souls for life, and not for death. But men, that there may be no crime with which they may not pollute their hands, deprive souls as yet innocent and simple of the light which they themselves have not given. Can any one, indeed, expect that they would abstain from the blood of others who do not abstain even from their own? But these are without any controversy wicked and unjust. What are they whom a false piety compels to expose their children? Can they be considered innocent who expose their own offspring as a prey to dogs, and as far as it depends upon themselves, kill them in a more cruel manner than if they had strangled them? Who can doubt that he is impious who gives occasion for the pity of others? For, although that which he has wished should befall the child -- namely, that it should be brought up -- he has certainly consigned his own offspring either to servitude or to the brothel? But who does not understand, who is ignorant what things may happen, or are accustomed to happen, in the case of each sex, even through error? For this is shown by the example of OEdipus alone, confused with twofold guilt. It is therefore as wicked to expose as it is to kill. But truly parricides complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children; as though, in truth, their means were in the power of those who possess them, or God did not daily make the rich poor, and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from marriage than with wicked hands to mar the work of God. - Divine Institutes (circa 305-310 AD), Book 6, Chapter 20. Showing continence is hardly a radical idea. Particularly considering that it is only needed about 7 days out of every 28 (Even fewer if basal temperatures are tracked). Doesn't sound like all that radical an idea to me.

The only Biblical reference that directly pertains to birth control is out of Genesis: Gen 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." Gen 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. Gen 38:10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also. I know, I know: VP always said that he was killed for not doing his duty toward his brother's wife, not for the mere fact that he didn't want to get her pregnant. But take a look at Deuternomy: Deu 25:5 "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. Deu 25:6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. Deu 25:7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, 'My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.' Deu 25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, 'I do not wish to take her,' Deu 25:9 then his brother's wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, 'So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.' Deu 25:10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off. You'll note that the penalty here (where the brother refuses to sleep with the widow) is humiliation, not death. Bottom line: the difference between the two accounts is that in the Genesis account, the brother wanted to get the sexual pleasure with the sister in law without the risk of pregnancy. In the second account, the brother didn't want to have sex with his sister in law. So that's about it, Biblically. Having said that, the culture was such that not wanting large families was unheard of and so birth control would have been seen as an abomination, in the vast majority of the cases. Up until 1930, all Christian churches condemned the use of birth control. In 1930, the Anglican Church changed their historic position to one allowing limited usage of artificial contraception (Lambeth Conference, 1930, Res. 15): Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. Within a few years, the majority of the rest of the Protestant Churches fell into line with the Anglicans.

One other thing I didn't mention: the money aspect. For seminarians, the diocese pays the tuition to the seminary. The seminarian's family, friends, or supporters pay for out-of-pocket expenses (car, clothes, and pocket money). For religious, the order pays for everything. Another big difference.

It's a VERY complicated subject to deal with, but here's a go at it: First of all, there are two completely different processes. Becoming diocesan clergy and joining a religious order are very different processes. They also have different missions in life. Second, there are fundamentally different theologies that highlight the differences between Catholic and (most) Protestant clergy. Only a few Protestant denominations have any kind of religious orders, so that is almost a non-sequitor for comparison. Keeping that in mind, let me first discuss the process in becoming a member of the Catholic clergy: The sacrament making a man a member of the clergy in the Catholic Church is called the Sacrament of Holy Orders. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1536 Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate. When one is ordained initially as a deacon, we believe that when one receives the sacrament of Holy Orders, the ordinand receives an imprint upon his soul that cannot be removed. Permanent (if you ever hear of a "former" priest, he isn't...he's either been released from his vows, has been laicized, or has abandoned them, but he is still a priest) To become a member of the clergy, there is an extended process of formation. For permanent deacons, the process lasts for four years studying several evenings a week while maintaining the day job and increasing the involvement in the ministry in the candidate's parish. For men studying for the priesthood, the process involves at least four years of seminary work (if the person already has a bachelor's degree and required undergrad coursework) and can last as long as eight years. Seminarians perform a considerable amount of pastoral work when they are not actually in class. They will go to a parish during their time off, may work with chaplains of hospitals, prisons, etc. or may go to mission fields either domestically or overseas to serve. All the while, their supervisor reports on their progress back to the seminary director. There is also a process of profiling and investigation of candidates. Obviously, since the clergy sex abuse scandals of the late 60s through the early 80s (that went public in 2002 and following), it's obvious that they need to make sure that candidates have the right psychological disposition. As a result, from what I understand, the screening process has been made significantly more rigourous in the past decade or two. (Note: initial indications are that it has been; however, it will be a couple of decades before we know that for sure) Once a person is ordained, the person receives a stipend for personal support (in our diocese, it's about $12k per year). Food and housing is provided, in the form of a rectory attached to the parish. The clergyman also receives compensation for providing additional services: performing weddings, baptisms, etc. (Note: this compensation is custom, not mandatory and the clergyman may not deny performing the sacrament if the recipient cannot pay). He can also earn extra money through writing books, teaching at high schools or colleges, performing missions (revivals) at other parishes, and in other ways. Note: permanent deacons typically have their own families, houses, and regular jobs. Therefore, there is usually no need to provide them a stipend. One other thing, once a man has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders, he may not lawfully be married. This is not to say that a married man may not receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but once he's received the sacrament, he may no longer get married. In the Eastern Rites (e.g., Byzantine, Coptic, Chaldean, Maronite, Melkite, etc.), married men may receive the sacrament and be admitted into the diaconate and the presbyterate, but not the episcopate. In the Latin Rite, married men may be admitted into the diaconate and, with a dispensation from the Holy See, may be admitted into the presbyterate, but may not be admitted into the episcopate. (Note: a dispensation is routinely granted for men who were previously ordained in the Anglican church and some who were ordained in the Lutheran church and who, following their ordination, converted) For what I can see, here are the contrasts: 1) Diocesan clergy are intended to serve within a single diocese for their entire lives. Exceptions are made, but they are truly exceptions, not the norm. 2) Diocesan clergy know, up front, that they make a lifetime commitment. 3) Diocesan clergy do not take on additional family responsibilities after their ordination. 4) Diocesan clergy (with the sole exception of permanent deacons) are full-time clergy. They are not expected to work both a full time day job and a full time church job. Religious Orders (which I believe VPW was really trying to emulate) have a far more stringent process. First of all, a man or woman who desires to be in a religious order basically has to go through the screening process described above. There is a period of postulation, which normally lasts for about a year. During this period, the person sees what the charism of the religious order is (what they do for a living: teach, work with poor, work with aged, or if they are contemplative). During this postulation period, either the religious superior or the postulant can terminate the relationship at any time. Following the period of postulation, the candidate enters a period of being a novice {Note: that would be the equivalent of in-residence training}. That time lasts for generally two or three years, but, depending on the order, might be as long as seven (I believe the Jesuits are seven years). Again, the vows taken are strictly temporary and the person can honorably leave during or at the end of the novitiate. After the novitiate, the person takes temporary vows (the specific terms vary from order to order). This period of temporary vows is from 4-10 years. You are bound to those vows at that time, but you are also released from those vows at the end of the temporary period. Finally, after that period, you would take your perpetual vows...which are binding until death. The vows taken by religious brothers and sisters are vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. (Please note: diocesan clergy do not take vows, they make solemn promises of chastity (according to their station in life; i.e., if married, be faithful; if single, be celibate) and obedience. Diocesan clergy can own property. Religious brothers and sisters may not. The difference between solemn promises and vows are that a person can honorably be released from a solemn promise (by the person to whom you made the promise; i.e., the bishop) -- a vow is a bit more difficult to be released. And, this should be common sense but let me point out: members of religious orders do not have earthly marriages. Men in religious orders who have professed their vows are considered to be married to the Church. Women in religious orders who have professed their vows are consdiered to be married to Christ. So what's the contrasts here? 1) There is a pretty thorough screening process 2) There are several breakpoints in the process where either side can terminate the relationship 3) The process takes a whole lot longer 4) There is no conflict between family and Church responsibilties: there are no family responsibilities, as you've abandoned all to serve God 5) There is no question about making a lot of money or being (worldly) successful: you've taken a vow of poverty and have given up all you own to serve God 6) There are religious orders that have different charisms (missions). If you don't like one order, go find another order with a different charism. If you go to a contemplative order, you're not going to be told to work in a hospital. If you are in a missionary order, you're not going to be shipped someplace to perform 18 hours of contemplative prayer a day on a recurrant basis. The other BIG difference is this: a person can be considered to be a fully successful and very spiritual Catholic without becoming a priest or joining a religious order. A person can, particularly in the modern Church, be considered a leader in the Church without becoming a priest or religious. Were non way corps considered to be fully successful, fully spiritual, etc.? (I seem to recall a certain snootiness among many Way Corps to "joe believers" when I was in. Don't know if that was the case before then or after then) Hopefully this answered your questions, WW. Sorry for the length, but wanted to make sure to provide a complete answer.

I hear ya. I live in the Northern suburbs and used to drive to Crystal City every day. After 2 years of that, I found a job far closer to home. 30 minutes a day beats four hours anytime!!!!